Currency and Government

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Someone recently asked, "If currency was never established, would government be better?"

What do you think?

Here is what I think:

Without currency and fictitious capital, I don't think the government would be as able to oppress the working class. By the government, I mean not only the elected politicians but more importantly the entire ruling class, which is mostly the richest people with their corporations, central banks, money, campaign contributions, titles, deeds, lobbyists, special interest groups, bribes, shareholders' meetings, and so forth.

It would be so obvious that the foundation of the economic system is unfair if the ruling class just blatantly claimed to own so much more than their fair share of the natural resources and made the working class pay them a cut of its production for permission to use the natural resources to produce. We would be much more likely to rebel if it was obvious.

In contrast, by using all this tricky currency and fictitious capital such as stocks, bonds and whatnot, the working class people do not realize how badly they are being ripped off. Instead of "ownership" of natural resources being unfairly distributed, it seems as if it is merely currency and fictitious capital that is being distributed. But that capital represents claims to ownership of natural resources and labor. The claim to own so much natural resources and labor enables those with so much currency to "invest" to make more currency. (For example, consider a guy who claims to own all the air in the world and makes us all pay him for permission to breathe.) So the ruling class remains rich by using the smoke-and-mirrors of currency to cover up the underlying oppression--the underlying oppression being to claim to "own" the majority of natural resources and labor (by owning the majority of capital) which they use to gain even more control (i.e. capital) by charging the working class fees and rent on their usage of natural resources.

In other words, an unproductive ruling class is able to con the working class out of most of the product of their labor by claiming to own most of the natural resources and labor, which the ruling class does by having most of the capital.

Also, it is important to remember that the ruling class has a lot of control on the capital by controlling the formal government and the central banks.

In conclusion, the lack of currency wouldn't necessary have resulted in a reduced amount of oppression, but it could have helped uncover the oppression which would probably lead to rebellion and a reduction of oppression.

Of course, a truly free society would have a truly free market which would probably naturally develop non-governmental currencies of some sort as a means of exchanging services. However, how could we avoid the same game of Monopoly from happening again?

I suggest opposing the use of governmental force to allow people to "own" more than their fair share of natural resources by buying them with capital; I suggest that formal organizations be formed not as "for profit" companies but rather as non-profit worker-owned companies (so that the company's revenue does not go to non-working owners who happened to have money to buy the company); I suggest eliminating central banks such as the Federal Reserve; And I suggest people stop using currency that is printed by governments or controlled by central banks.

Most importantly, I think the working people need to stop letting themselves be weaseled out of the fruits of their labor, which they do when they allow rich people to get richer by just already having money and not by producing real wealth.

What do you think?

[anarchyisbliss]

I'm glad you brought that up, I definitely think that the government and the whole world would be better without currency. It corrupts people and keeps people down, and some people live their whole lives just for money. Government officials are certainly corrupted by it to pass certain legislation in office and it keep other countries weak. I think a world without money would help make everything more equal and from that hopefully better.

[daying]

the style of this post and the response by anarchyisbliss represents why I am so disillusioned by the current mainstream of anarchist thinking. It is basically just an anti-capitalist rant, which should have no place in current anarchist thought.

Firstly, you should remember that currency is just a way of turning one asset into another. If you got rid of currency it just means that if you were starving, but owned a house, you would first say have to swop it for 5 mercedes, then each mercedes for 500 washing machines, etc till you got your sandwich. completely illogical. currency is as old as humans. and the BOlsheviks tried and failed to disallow it. because it's a stupid idea.

Secondly. Capitalism, and by that I mean the free market, is the most anarchistic way of organising wealth.
In fact, the more socialist you get, the less anarchist you get, because you are putting rules and regulations around transactions and making govt more involved.

There is an argument which is to protect less well off people from being used by those with capital. But that is to do with education. Poor people are not prevented from owning capital by law. what you are saying is that rich people should be prevented from owning capital. how is that anarchistic.
What i'm saying is there are bad affects of organising our economy in an anarchistic way, and you should recognise that and stop claiming to be anarchist.

Generally I think nobody who is claiming to be an anarchist and also anti capitalist is giving us a realistic plan of economy. They are only giving us communist, anti capitalist arguments without suggesting a better approach which is still anarchistic.

[vandsmith]

i think currency is a natural thing, and is not inherently bad. bartering and trade between social forces and individuals has always occurred in one form or another. people in villages traded between and among themselves and other villages... i feel there is a problem in the gathering and accumulation of currency or capital, to the point of excess. i'm not saying hard work should not be enjoyed, but there is a point at which it becomes too much. securing slave labour to produce your **** cheap, so you can live comfortably is wrong.

daying:

it is a topic that is often referred to as anarchic, and is in fact, rant. i agree. but...

1. currency is not just a way of turning one thing into a more mobile thing. it is a symbol of power and is used to control. another currency system may be available, there's no reason to think that because it doesn't yet exist there isn't a better/more ideal system. the lack of currency would not be as complex as you have written, because there would be a different conception of the person that goes along with a parallel currency system. a bartering system is not implicitly illogical if carried out properly, at least on a small scale. it also happens every day still, on small scales everywhere.
2. i agree that capitalism is somewhat anarchistic but anarchism also conceives of the person differently than capitalism, so the relation is not too sound. the absence of government in capitalism may seem like anarchism, but it's a loose comparison. granted, capitalism does obey rules and regulations, which is not unlike anarchism you understand, (anarchism is the absence of government only, not necessarily law or rules - important), but it sees nothing in the person except for labour source and/or consumer. it's not necessarily true that rules and regulations demand more government. in anarchist thought, rules and regulations abound; they common thread is that they are not enforced by government as such. there are ways of getting correct behaviour from people without involving the government....everytime your child steals a cookie, do you call the police? no. to submit to the necessity of government is unnecessary and very unanarchistic.
3. people should be protected from capitalism and education on unions, support for wage increases/minimums and the like is important. while poor people are not explicitly prevented from owning capital, they are prevented from other things for not having enough capital. not having capital, or enough of it, is the cause of poverty. by analogy, maybe not a good one, but whatevs. like why are poor people not in politics? why doesn't everyone go to school? there's no law saying they can't, but they are prevented from it through laws that require capital. why are there less women in politics? they are not barred, but most politicians come from established money backgrounds, and are lawyers or ceo's - generally areas where women are less present. women, by virtue of reproduction facts, are usually the ones that focus on family and child-rearing, effectively limiting their access to political and other time-consuming careers.

i think preventing the excess and conspicuous consumption through some form of law is a great step. redistribute profit, cut corporate waste, stop wasting food and produce. why should someone/thing exploiting child labour be rewarded with increased profits? that is an appropriate question for an anarchist.

stop confusing anarchism, at the root it is the absence of government - it's not necessarily the absence of order, or law.

daying, you are correct in the last part, we need concrete solutions, or at least some alternatives. bartering works small scale, but people always want more wealth. that is what capitalism has given us, a need for things, as measured in social value (through the looking glass). i agree that it is difficult to enact on a larger scale any time soon. the question is always, "what would work as good and allows us to keep what we have?" that doesn't work, because it invariably ends up supporting the status quo, or simply exchanges one ruling class for another (a la french revolution). the question should be, "do i really need as much as i have now to survive comfortably?" equity and equality demands sacrifice, and anarchists should know that; and they are kidding themselves if they don't.

i would suggest anarchism does not necessarily disqualify capitalism, but it does have a few important points of departure re: the concept of the human being. if the results of capitalism were brought under heel for the benefit of workers and citizens and not simply the owners, there would be no problem. liberal capitalism sees the individual as a consumer, worker and not much else. you get a backpack of rights, now get working. oh yeah, and if you're lucky you'll get a job that barely pays for your apartment. but as profit goes unchecked, inquality increases; the north-south divide is growing at enormous rates as companies are allowed to trawl for labour done cheap. this is completely against the spirit of anarchism. anarchism demands the most complete freedom for individuals and communities. this means freedom from governmental rule. this is not the same as syndicates, or communes, or autonomous regions. if capitalism is adversely affecting the freedom of people, anarchism is against it. simple.

[anarchyisbliss]

Firstly, you should remember that currency is just a way of turning one asset into another. If you got rid of currency it just means that if you were starving, but owned a house, you would first say have to swop it for 5 mercedes, then each mercedes for 500 washing machines, etc till you got your sandwich. completely illogical.

No, if you wanted food you could just pull it out of the ground, you wouldn't have to swap anything.

[anarchyisbliss]

stop confusing anarchism, at the root it is the absence of government - it's not necessarily the absence of order, or law.

Thank you!

[vandsmith]

anarchyisbliss: you're welcome. but,

such rules and regulations, i would assume, could not be based on religious law, or what is often called "natural law;" rather an anarchistic society must be based on law/regulation drawn from compassionate reasoning. the very idea of god stamped on anything anarchist would be a farce; anarchism also requires the most non-heirarchical situation possible, and thus could not claim to power the very name of god, (that's the way i have always read anarchism).

additionally, non-heirarchy would mean a different relationship, or conception of the relationship, between all genders - but that is given since the very idea of what that person next to you means should change.

adam

[anarchyisbliss]

the very idea of god stamped on anything anarchist would be a farce; anarchism also requires the most non-hierarchical situation possible, and thus could not claim to power the very name of god, (that's the way i have always read anarchism).

Untrue, you are confusing God with religion. You can have a personal belief in God and he can rule your life, but that doesn't mean you have to extend your philosophy into the social world. If you know what Im saying.

[Dreamshift]

Its likely that a fully bartering system would have many problems: what do you do if what you produce or can service isn't wanted by the person who has what you need? A system of currency is like a tool to show that you've worked and something to exchange for that: the worth of the work. A communism would work well for a Work based currency: you work and you recieve in credits what that work is worth on the market. But I'm getting on a tangent: I believe we must have a way to exchange goods with more than other goods and services and a way to make sure that two people who don't have what each other wants can still give each other something to make sure they both get what they need. That is currency. Well it has to be ligitimate and standarized so it is easy to know the value of the currency. This would be the part of the government, if that currency be gold coin or work-credits. Likely, people want gold and something more physical than work-credits and that's what all that gold in fort knox is supposed to do: validate and credit the paper money we have. That by itself is not the power and corruption that is the problem, I think you may have attributed that corruption to the wrong thing. It IS though, the banks and credit system that have run ammuck. Credit is where we can get the house we need now, and pay it off as we live in it. It was a great way to make sure people got their cars and their houses whether they had the money all at one time (NOT very likely when your barely living, extra poor people don't exacly have a trust fund). The REAL corruption is the interest rates. very bad creditors and banks will give you a loan with an interest rate, or an interest rate that will in time become apparent, that you can NEVER pay off. That is the power, and when people get a credit card with that kind of interest rate and start buying things because of instant gratification they become a slave to the credit system. You can't buy anything major without a credit record now, unless you have a pile of money under your bed you can buy things outright. What we need is price regulation, another thing a government must be called to do. We need to regulate more closely interest rates to make sure that when you buy a house or car that you will in a reasonable amount of time, rid yourself of that debt. Predatory creditors are currently a huge problem in the United States because they've drained all they can out of the system and now the system is paying for it. Another problem with credit is that you are paying something with "theoretical work". Credit means that you have purchased something now, for the theoretical pay that you will give them later. I'm worried very much that the United States has put themselves into slavery to creditors because we've just gone off the deep end with credit. Too many people are going insane with credit cards, I can get that great car now! and that great house! all I have to do is sign here! I'll pay it off in 20 years sure! Then the interest burries them into forclosure, and it looks like they more or less payed to rent the place, not own it.

My final word: I don't believe it is currency that is the control here: its credit.

[Polis]

In contemporary order of finance with so-called fiat currencies, the main privilege of governments is monopoly of falsify money. So Ithink, that in some sense currency simply equals government.

[df544]

Denigration of the rich cannot be considered without denigration of the poor.

Currency is obviously needed. The bankers have created a system that allows you and me to have toilet in our homes instead of outhouses in the field. So I wouldn't completely blame them.

They do need regulation though.

The future of currency is a world currency. Let's call it the Moondo.